IT'S OFFICIAL: C++ SUCKS

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918

>>40
The Z reference manual: http://spivey.oriel.ox.ac.uk/~mike/zrm/
The case study approach book: http://www.zuser.org/zbook/
"Using Z": http://www.usingz.com/

The Z user group's holy crapload of mostly useless linkage: http://www.zuser.org/z/
LaTeX stylesheet for laying out Z schemas (get the latex2e version): http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~smith/latex.html

It's a good idea to practice first on some module or component you've already written. Designing stuff from the ground up is kinda tough for someone who's used to putting down some struct definitions and prototypes first.

>>40
The introductory part is in the reference manual's first chapters.

>>41
>>42
Thanks!

>>26
Which is a good point.

>>30
Let me remind you the only thing you need to know to code ANY kind of application is C
Let me remind you the only thing you need to know to code ANY kind of application is rules for a Turing machine.

enjoy your 13.824 bytes Gibson while i can write the same thing in C and have it in maybe 20k bytes and faster that runs on any platform available.
As long as you use the mostly useless, often unsafe standard library alone, and of course if linked to glibc 2.2 because there's a bug in 2.3 for some NetBSDs and then if your terminal is set to foo and your locale is bar, problems arise because baz feature is left unspecified etc. etc. etc.

Enjoy your OMG OPTIMIZED piece of shit; I write a sufficiently fast program in a decent language in a fraction of your time, which works in every conceivable platform using a rich standard library which includes even a fucking web server.

>>33
My consensus is that C is great for a portable assembly, right tool for the right job, C fags and Gentoo ricers are stupid, Linux Tarballs is alright, C++ sucks and Python/Lisp/Lua/Haskell/Ruby/Erlang/whatever floats your boat is good.

>>44 wears heavy gloves around dangerous things, like bread knives and such.

>>44
As long as you use the mostly useless, often unsafe standard library alone
mostly useless often unsafe?
.. What kind of `features' or `functions' do you expect from it?
I'm curious, really.

Also glibc 2.3 being buggy is an implementation detail; it has nothing to do with actual C.
sorry, but you fail.
locales are a pain in the ass, but not a real problem in C; there are others which you have not described, still C prevails.

Let me remind you the only thing you need to know to code ANY kind of application is rules for a Turing machine.
Touring* you faggot.

>>37
Perhaps once you people grow the fuck up, you'll realize that REDEFINING FUNCTIONS ON THE FLY is NOT A GOOD WAY TO MAKE YOUR SHIT READABLE.
Lol, a poor scared C programmer who can't take more than his static explicitly typed hello world functions.

He's also too stupid to realize there's more than speed to it. In fact, hot updating for speed? What the fuck are you talking about? Can you really be that clueless? Hot updating means that my program can launch a maintenance thread that allows me to reload libraries or rewrite functions as the program runs, to fix something. I don't even have to restart my program for changes to take effect. Running instances of functions are not affected by the new code, and the old code is garbage collected when no longer in use. Can you do that in C, Cfag?

Shitty runtime? CPython may not be the most efficient (Guido's GIL), but the runtime as a whole is far more stable, compatible and better quality than any Clib. Lol 40 versions of libc and msvcrt. Lol sprintf, scanf, strtok, strcat, stranything.

Lol sprintf, scanf, strtok, strcat, stranything.
fixed ``Lol i never understood C :(''

>>37
Perhaps once you people grow the fuck up, you'll realize that REDEFINING FUNCTIONS ON THE FLY is NOT A GOOD WAY TO MAKE YOUR SHIT READABLE.
Lol, a poor scared C programmer who can't take more than his static explicitly typed hello world functions.

He's also too stupid to realize there's more than speed to it. In fact, hot updating for speed? What the fuck are you talking about? Can you really be that clueless? Hot updating means that my program can launch a maintenance thread that allows me to reload libraries or rewrite functions as the program runs, to fix something. I don't even have to restart my program for changes to take effect. Running instances of functions are not affected by the new code, and the old code is garbage collected when no longer in use. Can you do that in C, Cfag?

Shitty runtime? CPython may not be the most efficient (Guido's GIL), but the runtime as a whole is far more stable, compatible and better quality than any Clib. Lol 40 versions of libc and msvcrt. Lol sprintf, scanf, strtok, strcat, stranything.

>>50
Oops sorry, reposted >>48 instead of my next post.

>>49
I do understand it, and I understand how many of these functions are useless for production use. And they were already lame tools to begin with.

What kind of `features' or `functions' do you expect from it?
We already discussed this a few months ago. Start with basic higher-order and FP utility functions, real strings, proper Unicode and Unicode semantics, decent random numbers, arbitrary precision Maths, dynamic, heterogeneous lists, hash tables and sets, decent date functions, Perl-compatible regular expressions, HTML and URI-oriented string manipulation and escaping functions, XML parsers (of at least the two popular types plus some kind of simple as fuck object mapper), maybe INI and CSV file parsers too, or what's even better, built-in, standard lexer + LALR(1) parser, a JSON and a binary serializer, a standard database interface, standard built-in BSD sockets (maybe with a good template for a TCP server implemented as higher-order functions), and of course, a standard interface to systems calls to manipulate files and directories in any conceivable way, create process, basic user and permission handling, abstract terminal access, a simple direct graphics and audio layer (like SDL), and some GUI toolkits. Maybe even OpenGL bindings.

>>48,50
good job copypasting your post python faggot.

>>51
why is sprintf() lame?
Start with basic higher-order and FP utility functions,
fuck your functional programming you fucking idiot
real strings
okay, what in the fucking world is that
decent random numbers
in a standard library? be glad there is rand() for you faggot!
hash tables and sets
*facepalm*
decent date functions
WHAT THE FUCK
maybe INI and CSV file parsers too
in a standard library? my god you are fucking stupid
standard built-in BSD sockets
why don't you read a bit why there are no standard socket functions?
maybe with a good template for a TCP server implemented as higher-order functions
LOL

now i'm *very* sure you don't know C
what the fuck "real strings"
what the FUCK

>>51
We already discussed this a few months ago. I'm a Python fanboy and want every language to be exactly like Python.
Also note that the guy you're originally replying to knows Haskell.

>>52
WHERES YOUR FUQIN REPLY TO MY POST NWO YOU PATHETTIC PIECE OF SHIT!?
YEAH, THOUGH SO
SOME FUCKING LAMER THAT CANNOT READ THE C STANDARD BECAUSE HE'S TOOM UCH FO A FAGGOT AND HE CANNOT GRASP THE CONCEPT AND THE REASON C EXSITS
WHAT A FUCKING FAGGOT

>>53
why is sprintf() lame?
Can't allocate sufficient memory automatically.

fuck your functional programming you fucking idiot
Lol CFAG -O3 -march=athlonxp -mcpu=athlonxp -mmmx -msse -mfpmath=sse -malign-double -fpic -fno-strict-aliasing -ffast-math -foptimize-register-move -frerun-loop-opt -fexpensive-optimizations -fprefetch-loop-arrays -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops

okay, what in the fucking world is that
Shit that is:
- Binary-safe
- Dynamically expanded with O(1) complexity
- O(1) length
- Unicode-supporting, with transparent encoding or not

in a standard library? be glad there is rand() for you faggot!
Yes faggot, in a standard library!

in a standard library? my god you are fucking stupid
It's basic functionality motherfucker! Unlike your hello worlds program, I want to get things done, and to do it, I don't want to reinvent the wheel or collect 47 stupid buggy incomplete and incompatible libraries! It should be in the standard library because it's what everyone uses for real work!

now i'm *very* sure you don't know C
Actually, I've done quite a bit of work with it, both outside uni and a couple of things at work. You are free to not believe me, but I know what I'm talking about. No, I don't have trouble understanding C "strings", and yes, I can deal with **(unsigned int *)&lol->hax. I also knew (now forgot most of it, but can remember with a book) 80387 assembly (learnt it myself, during my OMG OPTIMIZED teenage phase) and R2000 assembly (uni, for our OMG OPTIMIZED class; I was among the 10% who had a clue about what was going on).

>>54
We already discussed this a few months ago. I'm a Python fanboy and want every language to be exactly like Python.
Lol, I see what you did there.

>>51

maybe INI and CSV file parsers too

What you need is PHP. It's a faggots language and you sure sound like a faggot

>>48
>far more stable, compatible and better quality than any Clib.
Oh wow, lol. Talk about badmouthing something you have no idea about.

learnt it myself, during my OMG OPTIMIZED teenage phase
Ha! I went through one of those too. Glad I did now though, the assembler knowledge has actually been incredibly useful.

CAPTAIN SUSSMAN TO THE RESCUE!


 09:13:23 up 285 days,  1:52,  1 user,  load average: 0.21, 0.20, 0.18

_{load average: 0.21, 0.20, 0.18}

0.21, 0.20, 0.18

0.20

09:13:23 up 285 days,  1:52,  1 user,  load average: 0.21, 0.20, 0.18
9:13:23 up 285 days,  1:52,  1 user
1:52

80387 assembly

Is this a new meme, or are you saying you went out and specifically learned assembly for floating-point (and nothing else)?

80386 = normal proc, but no floating point
80387 = coprocessor that implemented IEEE 754

Agree on the rest though.

The only reason anyone would hate a language is because they are bad at using said language.

The only problem with C++ is that it's easy to become over-reliant on the STL. But, you know, that's kind of the point with OOP.

>>66
Or because said language is shitty. Don't forget that part.

>>66
The only problem with C++
Problems? Okay, let's count:

1. Lack of powerful features
2. No garbage collector for OOP sucks
3. Statically, explicitly typed
4. Template insanity
5. Too many features, despite not being too powerful, make people use C++--, and my C++-- != your C++--
...

>>66
I agree.

However - what do you mean by over-reliance?

>>69
He means STL can't be relied upon.

72 Name: Anonymous 2013-03-18 19:08

SEPPLES